evildrneil Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 If it was that perfect it wouldn't've sparked 40+ pages of us talking about it at the other side of the world, would it? You can call his motivations reasonable, many have, but to behave like this is all a storm in a teacup misses the point. I'd point out why but it'd all start again, and go round again, and everyone would have their 2 pence worth ... again. I don't think that misrepresentation and conflation of concepts is a "storm in a teacup" but that doesn't stop the original advice being perfectly reasonable! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_Sleeps Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 To avoid further argument why don't we all agree that you're right and wrap this one up. Fair deal. The copper even knew it was wrong before he opened his mouth. I've worked in situations where you have to be careful how you phrase your points. I always managed to avoid offending people and causing international argument though, mainly because I didn't use the word 'slut' to a group of women. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Streamline Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 Fair deal. The copper even knew it was wrong before he opened his mouth. I've worked in situations where you have to be careful how you phrase your points. I always managed to avoid offending people and causing international argument though, mainly because I didn't use the word 'slut' to a group of women. I'd say he didn't necessarily think it was wrong because like you he knew he had to be careful. In my opinion the big mistake he made was apologising for what he was about to say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Streamline Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 I'm afraid you're onto a loser here - he is quite obviously a ranting lunatic with a chip on his shoulder so big he probably can't stand upright... What http://angryharry.com ? Can't see it myself. I met him once at a conference along the lines of fair parenting. Went to the canteen to get some grub with him, I had chips and pasty and he had a coffee. I offered him some chips but he wouldn't take them. Anyway, great bloke. God knows how many people he has helped over the years but he deserves an MBE at least in my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danot Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 Fair deal. I'm happy that you're happy. Posted by Chris_sleeps The copper even knew it was wrong before he opened his mouth. I wouldn't go as far as to say that. I'd say he knew it was going to be controversial and was likely to cause offence, but that in it's self doesn't make it wrong. Originally posted by Chris_Sleeps I've worked in situations where you have to be careful how you phrase your points. I always managed to avoid offending people and causing international argument though, mainly because I didn't use the word 'slut' to a group of women. I accept that someone of his position should not be heard using words such as "slut" when referring to women, especially when addressing a group of women. Having said that. It's hardly the most offensive word is it. It's no worse than 'Bitch' or slapper or slag or whore, which are used on a regular basis by men and women alike. Essentially, he's got himself into trouble due to his position, not because calling a woman a "slut" is unacceptable and extremely offensive to women. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Suffragette1 Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 You're gettiing BORING now but back on topic, your MISANDRIC DRIVEL is not "credible". Point is you haven't said anything except throw a hissy fit and a barrage of insults. That is not a debate. If you don't like it then change the record, it's that simple. Eh? Classic case of projection if ever there were one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Suffragette1 Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 I don't think that the two are one and the same in the minds of many at all. If anything it's is people like slutwalk who are confusing the two concepts and are more dangerous than the initial advice. The policeman at the origin of the whole furore said "women should avoid dressing like sluts in order not to be victimised" which is perfectly reasonable advice. He even used the word victim he did not in any way apportion blame but was simply giving sensible advice for a flawed women in a private meeting with a group of students. It was the slutwalk campaign who claimed that he was blaming women for sexual assault, which he quite clearly wasn't. Unless the hysteria can be toned down a bit it becomes impossible to have any sort of rational debate, instead you get extremists like Angry Harry and Dworkin-esque "feminists" shouting at each other. It is undoubtedly the case that your behaviour affects other's reactions to you and that in some cases it can be provocation but that whole area has become a taboo subject as any sane conversation simply has you jumped on and accused of misogyny Perhaps. I totally understand what you're saying, however, you credit the public at large with more intelligence than I do; I do believe that the average person does conflate the two. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Suffragette1 Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 What http://angryharry.com ? Can't see it myself. I met him once at a conference along the lines of fair parenting. Went to the canteen to get some grub with him, I had chips and pasty and he had a coffee. I offered him some chips but he wouldn't take them. Anyway, great bloke. God knows how many people he has helped over the years but he deserves an MBE at least in my opinion. I think that Dirty Harry is a zillion times more progressive than AngryAllWomenAreEvilLying BitchesHarry. He is clearly one bitter and twisted dude who has had a bad experience (or two) with women and wishes to tar us all with the same brush. He pounces on every media story which shows women committing a crime or some immoral act and seizes upon it in a feeding frenzy in a pathetic attempt to try and prove beyond all reasonable doubt that said woman is typical of the average one. I expect he nearly wet himself over the recent case of Dominique Strauss-Kahn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Streamline Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 I think that Dirty Harry is a zillion times more progressive than AngryAllWomenAreEvilLying BitchesHarry. He is clearly one bitter and twisted dude who has had a bad experience (or two) with women and wishes to tar us all with the same brush. He pounces on every media story which shows women committing a crime or some immoral act and seizes upon it in a feeding frenzy in a pathetic attempt to try and prove beyond all reasonable doubt that said woman is typical of the average one. I expect he nearly wet himself over the recent case of Dominique Strauss-Kahn. Yeah it's funny isn't it, he's like a totally taxpayer free one man band unit who correlates all the bad info one gender and in particular feminists who have got their hands in just about every begging bowl going. Of course he may have had bad experiences with women (not that I'm aware though) but that's not unusual for most guys these days is it? So being a feminist can you tell when guys who had bad experiences are allowed to speak about them? Is it 3+ perhaps? Looking at the website it seems the focus at the moment it's the hunger strike by Matt O'Connor outside David Cameron's house http://www.angryharry.com/ http://www.youtube.com/user/wearefathers4justice You probably call this group nutty and weird as well Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Suffragette1 Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 Yeah it's funny isn't it, he's like a totally taxpayer free one man band unit who correlates all the bad info one gender and in particular feminists who have got their hands in just about every begging bowl going. Of course he may have had bad experiences with women (not that I'm aware though) but that's not unusual for most guys these days is it? So being a feminist can you tell when guys who had bad experiences are allowed to speak about them? Is it 3+ perhaps? Looking at the website it seems the focus at the moment it's the hunger strike by Matt O'Connor outside David Cameron's house http://www.angryharry.com/ http://www.youtube.com/user/wearefathers4justice You probably call this group nutty and weird as well I'm rather tired of the endless assumptions that you make and views that you attribute to me. Why would I think that Fathers for Justice are nutty and weird? I happen to think that there are men out there who have been dealt a raw deal when it comes to access to their kids and sadly there are women out there who use their kids as pawns. It is obvious to anyone that Angry Harry is very bitter and twisted so it is not unreasonable to infer from his misogynistic stream of consciousness that he has had a bad experience or two with women. He's not speaking about said experiences in any meaningful way, just ranting about how dreadful most women are and according to him, we live in a matriarchal society. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.